Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world search. Beyond that, the description adds the matching semantics (names, tags, descriptions), the empty-query behavior, and which fields come back (ids, names, descriptions, thumbnails, video links) — useful since there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning pagination or result caps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with zero waste: what it searches, the empty-query behavior, and the return shape — all front-loaded in the first sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers query semantics, default behavior, and return fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the query is free-form words matched across multiple text fields, and an absent query sorts to newest. It does not discuss tag/color combination behavior, but that is documented per-parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — "Search green screen meme clips by words" — and specifies precisely which fields the words are matched against (names, tags, descriptions). This clearly separates it from get_green_screen (single clip) and get_trending (no query), even without naming siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Leave query empty to get the newest" gives a concrete fallback behavior that guides invocation. There is no explicit routing to alternatives such as get_trending or list_tags when the user's intent is trending or tag browsing, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.